Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Anonymous asked in Science & MathematicsBiology · 1 decade ago

about EVOLUTION, what can you say about this?

There are two areas of science:

1. operational science - deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful products like computers, cars, and satellites

2. historical science - involves interpreting evidences from the past and basing interpretations on existing natural laws

On this premise, knowing what happened in the past cannot be interpreted using operational science since no one was present in the past. No living person was an eye witness of what happened in the past. Evolution therefore cannot claim that it has the upper hand in science.

Natural selection




These terms are used interchangeably with evolution (by evolutionists, of course) creating the proposition that evolution and the above phenomena are one and the same. Such is a distorted view of what is reality. The above phenomena could be observed but NOT evolution.

(On this note, I would like to declare that I use “evolution” based on what is defined in talkorigins website. )

All present evidences point to different linkages (or origins) of species, as each “kind” was created separately. Variations occurred on interplay of cross-breeding, mutation, adaptation and natural selection. While there are similarities in genes across species, that phenomenon is not a proof that every living species came from a common ancestor. In fact, evolution theory would be more comfortable if it adopted that there are two or more unrelated systems of life (rather than all systems are related). If one population could change to be a better group of organisms then it would not be surprising that the present population would be totally different from their ancestors. As stated by ReMine, “Evolution never did predict biologic universals, it merely accommodated them.” Creationists, on the other hand, interpret the similarities in biological lives as a proof that there is One Creator of life, one common design.

Each set of living creatures came from each own set of ancestors (dog kind, cat kind, human, fish kind, etc.). NOT ALL organisms present in this age were the same organisms present during the day of Creation. Variations occurred thru cross-breeding, mutations, adaptation and natural selection. That humans during the initial generations are “superior” to present day humans is probable such that they were giants and lived longer years actually happened. And because of mutations and degeneration of life systems, in accordance to 2nd law of thermodynamics, biological systems deteriorated (and continue to deteriorate), such that the average life span at present would be only 70 years.

One can notice that creationists’ views are exactly the opposite that of evolution. We cannot see any explanation of what evolution theory holds claiming that every biological life system came from a common ancestor and that the “off springs” are better generations than their ancestors. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not agree with the theory, much more if the avenue of mutation is used since organisms with expressed mutations are the "weakest links" and cannot survive in the long species lineage.

Basically, principles of thermodynamics and genetics cannot agree with what evolution would like to explain.


got it from a friend

1 Answer

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I can say it's overly long with lots and lots of words saying not a lot in very round-a-bout ways. It's a bit like trying to follow the thread in a heap of spaghetti partly covered by bolognaise sauce.

    <<Evolution therefore cannot claim that it has the upper hand in science.>>

    That conclusion is undermined by the detail that evolutionary theory happens to have the upper hand (and the rest or the arm), as most biologists stopped discussing whether evolution occurs back in the 1860s. Some discussion concerning how went on for some time longer.

    <<All present evidences point to different linkages (or origins) of species, as each “kind” was created separately.>>

    That's simply wrong, and ignores all present evidence. (The plural of 'evidence' is 'evidence', by the way, not 'evidences'. I'd imagine your friend isn't exactly familiar with the evidence they've attempted to inform you of.)

    <<Basically, principles of thermodynamics and genetics cannot agree with what evolution would like to explain.>>

    Your friend is also woefully informed (or thoroughly uninformed) on thermodynamics and genetics as well.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.